Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32620945›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

Fold-stratified cross-validation for unbiased and privacy-preserving federated learning.

Romain Bey, Romain Goussault, François Grolleau, Mehdi Benchoufi, Raphaël Porcher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. To predict the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) using Generalized Additive2 Models (GA2M).Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  15. Federated Learning in Health care Using Structured Medical Data.Advances in kidney disease and health · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Romain BeyCentre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Université de Paris, French Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA), Paris, France.
Romain GoussaultCIC 1413, Center for Research in Cancerology and Immunology Nantes-Angers (CRCINA), Dermatology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Nantes, Nantes University, Nantes, France.
François GrolleauCentre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Université de Paris, French Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA), Paris, France.
Mehdi BenchoufiCentre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Université de Paris, French Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA), Paris, France.
Raphaël PorcherCentre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Université de Paris, French Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA), Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe introduce fold-stratified cross-validation, a validation methodology that is compatible with privacy-preserving federated learning and that prevents data leakage caused by duplicates of electronic health records (EHRs). MATERIALS AND

methodsFold-stratified cross-validation complements cross-validation with an initial stratification of EHRs in folds containing patients with similar characteristics, thus ensuring that duplicates of a record are jointly present either in training or in validation folds. Monte Carlo simulations are performed to investigate the properties of fold-stratified cross-validation in the case of a model data analysis using both synthetic data and MIMIC-III (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III) medical records.

resultsIn situations in which duplicated EHRs could induce overoptimistic estimations of accuracy, applying fold-stratified cross-validation prevented this bias, while not requiring full deduplication. However, a pessimistic bias might appear if the covariate used for the stratification was strongly associated with the outcome. DISCUSSION: Although fold-stratified cross-validation presents low computational overhead, to be efficient it requires the preliminary identification of a covariate that is both shared by duplicated records and weakly associated with the outcome. When available, the hash of a personal identifier or a patient's date of birth provides such a covariate. On the contrary, pseudonymization interferes with fold-stratified cross-validation, as it may break the equality of the stratifying covariate among duplicates.

conclusionFold-stratified cross-validation is an easy-to-implement methodology that prevents data leakage when a model is trained on distributed EHRs that contain duplicates, while preserving privacy.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsConfidentialityData AnonymizationElectronic Health RecordsMachine LearningComputer SecurityHumansdata leakageduplicated electronic health recordsfederated learningprivacyvalidation

Identifiers

PMID32620945
PMCPMC7647321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.